Wednesday, March 26, 2008

International Treaty Not Binding in US Courts

- Supreme Court: March 26, 2008

Facts
A Mexican named Jose Ernesto Medellin was convicted of murder and sentenced to death in for his act of raping and murdering two teenage girls in 1994. When he was arrested in Texas, however, the police did not inform him of his rights to contact the government of his origin. The right comes from the Vienna Convention, in which the United States had signed in 1969.

The Mexico government sued the United States in the International Court of Justice, also called World Court, at The Hague on behalf of 51 Mexicans who were in death row in the U.S., including Medellin. The court ruled in favor of Mexico and said that the U.S. is obliged to open a new trial for Medellin. However, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals refused to give Mendelin a new hearing citing the state law that limits hearing to death cases.

Issues
How enforceable is a international treaty and World Court decision in the state courts?

Rule
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963, Texas law

Analysis
(1) The international treaty is an agreement between governments, and the phrase "undertakes to comply” in the treaty only means doing the nation's best, not obligations.
(2) The international treaty is not "self-executing," unless the government and the Congress enact further domestic legislation. Moreover, under the Constitutional principle of the federalism and the separation of powers, political branches, not the courts, should have "the primary role in deciding when and how international agreements will be enforced."
(3) The decision of World Court is diplomatic as is the treaty, and not automatically enforceable in domestic courts.

Conclusion
The Texas court is not binded by the World Court Ruling; so it is not obliged to reopen the trial.

- 6 to 3 (Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy, John Paul Stevens, and John Roberts; Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and David Souter)

Sources

No comments: